Halloween Post- Two Perspectives On Death
Bertrand Russell (1872-1970)
‘Till Death Do us Part…
At every funeral I attend, I think of a story my dad once told me about myself. When I was a small child, we went to a loved one's funeral. Afterward, in the car, I asked what might have been my first philosophical question: "Why does God make us just to die?" My dad was taken aback, but even more surprised was my brother, who, in that moment, realized for the first time that he, too, would one day die.
As a family, we laugh about the story now, yet the question still lingers: Why do we die? And what, if anything, awaits us beyond death? My dad didn’t have an answer then, and it’s a question that has puzzled philosophers for ages. In honor of Halloween’s focus on the mysterious and macabre, I’d like to share two contrasting perspectives on death and the afterlife—one from Plato (427–347 B.C.), who argued for the immortality of the soul, and another from Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), who believed death is final.
Plato- Timeless and Endless
Plato, an ancient Athenian philosopher, believed that humans consist of two parts: body and soul. In Alcibiades I and Phaedo, Plato presents his argument for the soul’s existence and immortality. In Alcibiades I, he first establishes the existence of the soul through an analogy of artisans and their tools. In this dialogue, Socrates (Plato’s stand-in) is talking with his student and lover, Alcibiades, and poses a seemingly simple question: Are we talking right now?
Alcibiades agrees—they are indeed talking, and specifically, they’re talking using words. Socrates then introduces an idea: "And the user is not the same as the thing which he uses?" This might sound odd at first, but Socrates’ point is that we don’t confuse a carpenter with his straightedge or a trucker with the truck she drives. In the same way, Plato argues, a person is not their body but rather a consciousness that uses the body. This consciousness is the soul, and it’s the soul that constitutes the true essence of a person.
But what about the idea that the union of body and soul makes the person? Socrates addresses this by asking Alcibiades to consider: if one aspect of a person (the body) is subject to another (the soul), how could they both be in control? To say that they’re a union would be a contradiction!
Nothing To Fear, Nothing To Doubt
But what about the immortality of the soul? Just because I have a “soul” doesn’t mean it lives on after death! Plato believed in reincarnation and that a soul devoted to philosophy could eventually reach the world of forms. While those ideas deserve their own discussion, Plato’s reasoning here is that if our consciousness, or soul, is not the same as our body, it might be able to continue thinking after death. Consider it this way: we’ve established that a craftsman is not the same as the tool he uses. Similarly, the conscious mind is separate from the body. If the tool is destroyed, does that mean the craftsman is destroyed? Of course not. So, Plato argues, if the soul is separate from the body, then it must be able to continue to think and exist even after the body dies in the same way a carpenter can continue to build even after losing his straightedge.
Plato also believes that the death of the body is actually beneficial. In life, our minds are constantly burdened and distracted by the demands of the physical world. We need to work to earn money to eat so that our bodies can survive. All of this faffing about pulls us away from our mind’s true purpose—pursuing philosophy. In death, however, our minds are freed from the “shackles” of the physical body and can engage in philosophy without distraction. To Plato, death isn’t a curse but an opportunity, a release that allows the mind to fulfill its true calling.
Bertrand Russell- Lights Out!
Bertrand Russell, an English philosopher, was one of the most influential thinkers and social critics of the 20th century. He was notably skeptical of religion and the afterlife, viewing both as ways people cope with the fear of death. In his essay The Finality of Death, Russell begins by challenging the concept of the soul. Traditionally, a person’s continuity over time was thought to be due to the soul’s existence. Russell disagrees, arguing instead that “the continuity of the human body is a matter of appearance and behavior, not of substance.”
Russell explains that the cells in our bodies are eventually replaced, and even the atoms within us change over time. What gives a person continuity, he argues, is memory. For someone to be immortal, therefore, their memories would need to endure beyond death. Although Russell admits this is theoretically possible, he considers it highly unlikely. Since we understand memory as a function of the brain, he questions how memories could survive once the brain ceases to function.
Wishful Thinking
Russell argues that “It is not rational arguments, but emotions that cause belief in a future life. The most important of these emotions is fear of death, which is instinctive and biologically useful.” For Russell, this explains why many people feel compelled to believe in an afterlife. He also notes that the concept of an afterlife can be a powerful tool for motivating large groups, even to the point of going to war.
Russell also questions whether an intelligent God created the universe. To him, the universe appears to be filled with suffering and indifferent to human values. He points out that those with the most destructive weapons, such as atom bombs and poison gas, often hold power. If this is true, how can one argue that only moral people, like Christians, will enter heaven, while figures like Hitler and Mussolini will not? Christians believe that heaven is reserved for the good, but whose standard of morality applies? Even by Christian standards, can we really say that those who led witch hunts and pogroms deserve eternal life? For Russell, these ethical questions challenge the concept of an afterlife.
In concluding his essay, Russell reflects on God and the afterlife. Considering the vast suffering in the universe, he suggests that if the universe were designed, it was designed with malevolent intentions. Russell, in fact, finds comfort in the idea that death is the end, saying, “For my part, I find accident”—that is, a universe existing by chance—“a less painful and more plausible hypothesis.”
The End?
Though Russell and Plato have diametrically opposed views on death, the universe, and the afterlife, they agree on one thing: death is nothing to fear. It’s unlikely any philosopher will solve the mystery of the afterlife anytime soon. So for now, let’s take comfort in the idea that, regardless of their beliefs about an afterlife, philosophers on both sides find peace in not fearing what comes next.